User Reviews
Pages: 1 2 next»
| | |
Good strategy game with historical touches | 4.2 0 comments |
by Deathman48
| Aug 2, 2004 |
THE GOOD: Excellent strategy game Educational as well with real civilisations and heroes of the timeTHE BAD: Large games can take an age (no pun intended) to complete SUMMARY: Age of Empires is a RTS game where the basic aim is to build up your civilisation from a few villagers up to a massive army and conquer the world. You can choose from various civilisations that actually existed and all of them have strengths and weaknesses. To win it’s best to capitalise on your strengths and use them.
In this game you can do single player missions where you are taken through some real life events and you play your way through them. The knowledge I’ve gained from this game is actually remarkable useful and has actually come up in conversations and quizzes from time to time. Tell that to people who think games aren’t educational! But the real fun of this game comes from playing multiplayer games either against the computer or other people.
To build up your civilisation you need to collect resources. These are food, wood and gold. These will be required to build your buildings, train army units and research technologies. Units called villagers are the ones who collect the resources and build and repair any buildings. They aren’t physically strong so it’s necessary to protect them with other units or just keep an eye on them to make sure they don’t wander into trouble. You do have a population limit and can only support so many units. To increase this value you need to build houses which will increase the threshold.
Using civilisations from the Greeks to the Persians to the Phoenicians you do battle with other people on a large map and basically try and kill everyone else. But different civilisations have access to different units. While you may be able to get the elite Cataphract cavalry unit, some other teams might not. Some teams (like the Hitties) excel in naval warfare, and the Babylonians have walls and towers with more hit points than usual so they excel at defence. It’s best to realise that some teams suit some maps better. Of course, you may have a favourite team to use and know all the positives and negatives with them and be able to exploit their units to your advantage. I used to love the Phoenicians and I was able to more than hold my own just by using a few units. And also each civilisation will have set advantages which differ for them all. For example the Egyptian priests automatically have +3 added to their conversion range, and with research that goes up to 16 and is the longest reach in the game making the Egyptian priests deadly on the battlefield.
Another thing you need to realise is that some units actually have attack bonuses against others. Some units are stronger against some and weaker against others. Sometimes it may not be profound, but when you put a horse archer against the slow moving (but extremely powerful) Hoplite, the archer will always win because it has enough time to fire, retreat a bit and fire again, retreat a bit and fire again and so on. So despite the fact that the Hoplite has a much higher attack strength, its slow speed means it will always lose unless you can surround the horseman. However, put a Hoplite against any other infantry unit and it will pound it into the ground with its brute power.
One of the more handy units are Priests. They have the ability to heal almost any friendly unit. But crucially they can convert other enemy units onto your side. They do need to regenerate after every successful conversion, but with a range of 10-13 (after research) and 16 with the Egyptians, they are a formidable foe. You can upgrade the attack of most units by researching things at various buildings. You also have to advance to the next age by upgrading at the town centre. You start off in the Dark Age and eventually get to the Iron Age if I remember correctly. As you advance through the ages better technology and units become available.
For me, the fact that the game was done with actual history in mind only made it more appealing to me. The Egyptians were a very religious race, so to give them very powerful priests is an appropriate touch and no doubt there are other similar touches that I never realised.
One downside is that some games can take an eternity to do, especially large multiplayer maps. If you can’t manage to break through an opponent’s defences you might find the game going for several hours. If you’re playing on your own that’s fine as you can save it, but online you can’t and it’s an easy way for several hours to go down the drain.
I first played a demo version of this round a friend’s house and was pretty impressed by it, so I went and bought the full version when it was released and I wasn’t disappointed at all. Age of Empires II is better than this, but if you can find this fairly cheaply or bundled together with the sequel then it’s worth getting if you like these types of games. |
| 7 out of 12 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
A so-so strategy game. | 4.0 0 comments |
by lkjhgfdsa from Marneri, Argonath, IANTA | Oct 8, 2003 |
THE GOOD: This game has incredibly graphics, and lots of neat cultures from when the world was young, and when everything was happening in the middle east, and south east europe. The details given to the many ancient units of those days are incredible. The way you play is up to you. The edit mode is wonderful for creating your own scenario.THE BAD: Sadly what this game, and all other AOE games are missing is MORE if only there had been more cultures, more places to fight, and more things to fight with, this game would've been even better. SUMMARY: If you like strategy games where you're in control of a race or empire, this is the game for you, not able to compete with it's decendants, but still an excellent first AOE game, this game is great. If you want to see some cultures a bit older than the ones of later AOE's, this game has them. |
| 4 out of 11 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
Age of Empires (Demo) | 4.7 0 comments |
by MasterCheat from Montoursville, PA, USA | Aug 27, 2003 |
THE GOOD: ----THE BAD: ---- SUMMARY: This is also alot like Warcraft. Except this involves the evolution of mankind. You begin with one Builder and a Town square. You make more builders at the town square and then build farms for food, places to train warriors, walls, upgrading structures, boats, docks, and places of higher learning. You do this and fight the enemy. Simple and easy. There are many levels in which to play, and the upgrading options are huge. Train stupid axemen to become sword-wielding killing machinces. But before you do that you must advance to a certain age. YOu usually start out in the Stone Age, and go to the next age by getting so many advanced buildings. As your Age goes to the next, all of your buildings will upgrade and have new options. You have to mine gold to do this, but its plentiful. YOu may also need oil and wood, but they are readily available, too. |
| 4 out of 9 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
Age of Empires | 4.5 0 comments |
by Jooka from Kyoto, , Japan | Jul 9, 2003 |
General/Summary: A good game that gets you hooked straight away! Its very easy to play. And there's lots of ways to play it! Gameplay: You got a good variety of quests, levels, fighters-eg, warriers, bowmen, horse men, etc and can all be upgraded to bigger and better things. You can pick up how to play the game straight away in about an hour at least! At first there seems like an endless amount of levels to complete, even later on you realize there were a fair few. You feel in complete control of your civilisation and how you set it out. In my oppinion-its one of the best simulation games to have ever have come out-a whole unique series!
Graphics: Graphics aren't bad for a simulation game. You don't need great graphics to enjoy the build up and destroy the other civilisation thing. The graphics look like comic drawings in a way.
Sound: Sound isn't too bad. A bit limited though. There could have been a bit more of a variety. |
| 4 out of 8 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
AoE Review | 4.2 0 comments |
by Pox Americus from Shitfaced, , USA | Apr 5, 2003 |
THE GOOD: Addictive gameplay, storyline (actual history) is interesting, lots of units, level editor, solid gameplayTHE BAD: Bland graphics, campaigns can be repetitive, units can be unbalanced SUMMARY: Back when I first got this game I was very addicted to it for the longest time. Up until then the best RTS I had played had been Warcraft II which was decent in its own respects but paled in comparison. I enjoyed playing this game for the longest time. Now it is unfair to compare it to the later releases of titles such as Starcraft or AoE II but during it's time this game was unrivaled.
As you act out history itself through some of the very well designed campaigns (which do tend to be repetitive) you'll have a bevy of units at your disposal as you start from almost nothing and build your own empire to take on the likes of Alexander the Great, Hector and even Caesar. And aside from that there are several other modes which include random maps, deathmatching and even a very well designed level editor.
All in all a very good game with addictive gameplay that makes it an instant classic. I would recommend finding yourself a copy which can more than likely be purchased at a bargain price by now. |
| 3 out of 6 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
Perfect game | 5.0 0 comments |
by Nick 31
| Feb 8, 2003 |
THE GOOD: Graphics, sound effects, EVERYTHING!THE BAD: None hah! It is too good SUMMARY: This game is the best! If you payed 1000 bucks for it it would be worth it. It even has an Expantion:The Rise of Rome! They are the same except for a few things but who cares? The people yell when they die and it sounds realistic you can create your own scenario (my favorite is lord of the rings. hobbits are vilagers Gandalf is a priest,Aragorn and Boromir are legions,Legolas is a composite bowman and Gimli is an axeman!) |
| 3 out of 6 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
fun fun..kinda. | 3.0 0 comments |
by ShadowMandarb
| Jan 6, 2003 |
THE GOOD: -Battles -its fun to play...THE BAD: -Units get lost in the woods! -Random marching pattern SUMMARY: I love AOE. This is my kinda game, sort of. The fighting is good, the units that you have to work with are good and it has a great replay value becuase you have multiple different kinds of maps, different enemies and you can make your own senarios. The downside is that your army marches randomly, and if they hit trees, they just stop and wait for you to find them again. |
| 5 out of 10 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
AOE Review | 3.4 0 comments |
by RPG_Master44 from Still drunk, , and stoned... | Aug 18, 2002 |
THE GOOD: Innovative strategy game, with good bttling system, and can be quite challenging on a high difficulty.THE BAD: Not very much replay value and the gameplay lacked in certain areas. Plus part 2 is much better. SUMMARY: Well when I first played this game I was somewhat satisfied by it. I am a big fan of strategies and this game was pretty good. I enjoyed the evolving civilizations and new people that came with it. I also enjoyed the difficulty which always gives you a challenge. This game though just did not have enough to get you hooked and you find yourself more drawn to play Starcraft or something. I recommend borrowing or renting this game if you can. |
| 6 out of 9 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
AOE age of empires | 5.0 0 comments |
by Mikalicous from Doha, , Qatar | Jul 20, 2002 |
THE GOOD: has really gr8 graphicsTHE BAD: nothing is bad about the game SUMMARY: a really really great game and a good random map generator, the first age of empires game was a great hit...it has good FMV's and u can tell that all age of empires are good games...i wish i could rate it ten;)i do reckon that this is good but u can see that the other games and expansions r the fav's now but i still like this one it rocks! hope microsoft creates more of AOE! |
| 4 out of 7 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
| | |
Age of Sucsess | 4.7 0 comments |
by Nashima Okanara
| Nov 25, 2001 |
| This game is very good. It has a good control structure and lots of other things like siege weapons Phalanxes and others. The only bad thing about this game is that the limited resources mkes it difficult to advance through the ages and build large structures. |
| 5 out of 10 people found this review helpful. | Did you find this review helpful? YES NO |
|
Pages: 1 2 next»
|
|